Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester Enterprises, Inc. et. al.

Background

The court addressed requests to restrict public access to Exhibits F and G filed in connection with Plaintiff Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.’s motion for default judgment against other non-appearing defendants. The court construed letters at Dockets 436 and 442 as sealing requests.

Exhibit F was attached to the declaration of Tara A. Currie and consisted of records produced by dismissed Defendant FragranceNet.com, Inc. in discovery. FragranceNet had marked the records confidential under the January 31, 2025, protective order because they contained information about purchases from suppliers, including supplier identities, purchase dates, quantities, and prices. FragranceNet requested that Exhibit F be filed under seal. It proposed that access be limited to attorneys for the plaintiff and FragranceNet, with Defendant Diamond Cosmetics Pte. Limited and its counsel receiving a version that redacted the identities of and prices paid to other suppliers.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that the exhibits were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. It also stated that narrowly tailored redactions may be permitted to protect legitimate privacy and competitive interests. The court noted that supplier identities and pricing information could reveal FragranceNet’s purchasing strategies, supplier base, and operational costs, and could cause commercial harm.

The court distinguished between the two exhibits. It granted the request to seal Exhibit G’s telephone numbers and email addresses and ordered that the plaintiff refile Exhibit G with redactions limited to that information by August 27, 2026.

The request to seal Exhibit F in its entirety was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court ordered the plaintiff to refile Exhibit F with redactions limited to the columns listing the identities of suppliers and the prices paid to those suppliers. The court explained that, although its August 11, 2026, order stated that redactions are preferred to sealing entire documents, the one-page Exhibit F consisted almost entirely of FragranceNet’s confidential and trade-secret information, making protection of the specified information appropriate under the circumstances.

Disposition

The court granted the request to seal the telephone numbers and email addresses in Exhibit G. It granted in part and denied in part the request to seal Exhibit F in its entirety, requiring limited redactions instead. The Clerk of Court was respectfully directed to terminate Docket 425.